• Swedish ISP punishes #Elsevier for forcing it to block #Sci-Hub by also blocking Elsevier / Boing Boing
    https://boingboing.net/2018/11/03/balkanizing-the-balkanizers.html

    This is the worst possible outcome for Bahnhof. TorrentFreak spoke to CEO Jon Karlung who describes it as a “horrifying” decision that “goes against the soul of the Internet.”

    The result, starting today, is that sci-hub.tw, sci-hub.mu, sci-hub.se, libgen.io, and several other domains are being blocked by the ISP. But Bahnhof wouldn’t be Bahnhof if it went down without a fight.

    The company has no faith in an expensive appeal, which another ISP lost last year in a similar blocking case. However, it does have another ace up its sleeve. Now that they are blocking anyway, they can easily an extra domain name to make a point.

    So, in addition, Bahnhof has gone ahead and banned its visitors from accessing the official Elsevier.com website as well. Elsevier wanted a site blockade – it now has one.


  • #Paywall : The Business of Scholarship

    Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, produced by #Jason_Schmitt, provides focus on the need for open access to research and science, questions the rationale behind the $25.2 billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers, examines the 35-40% profit margin associated with the top academic publisher Elsevier and looks at how that profit margin is often greater than some of the most profitable tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Google. For more information please visit: Paywallthemovie.com


    https://vimeo.com/273358286

    #édition_scientifique #université #documentaire #film #elsevier #profit #capitalisme #savoir #impact_factor #open_access
    signalé par @fil, que je remercie

    –-----------

    Quelques citations du tirés du film...

    John Adler, prof. Standford University :

    “Publishing is so profitable, because the workers dont’ get paid”

    Paul PETERS, CEO #Hindawi :

    “The way we are adressing the problem is to distinguish the assessment of an academic from the journals in which they publish. And if you’re able to evaluate academics based on the researchers they produce rather than where their research has been published, you can then start to allow researchers to publish in journals that provide better services, better access”

    Paul PETERS, CEO Hindawi :

    “Journals that are highly selective reject work that is perfectly publishable and perfectly good because it is not a significant advance, it’s not gonna made the headline as papers on disease or stemcells”

    Alexandra Elbakyan :

    “Regarding the company itself (—> Elsevier), I like their slogan ’Making Uncommon Knowledge Common’ very much. But as far as I can tell, Elsevier has not mastered this job well. And sci-hub is helping them, so it seems, to fulfill their mission”

    • je suis tres surpris par un point mentionne plusieurs fois : il faut que la recherche sur la sante, le rechauffement climatique, etc, bref, tout ce qui a « un vrai impact » soit ouvert, parce qu’il y a des vrais problemes, et donc il faut du monde pour y participer.... Mais je n’ai pas entendu grand chose sur la recherche fondamentale... Je ne sais pas si ca tient du fait que la recherche fondamentale etant moins « remuneratrice », le probleme est moins flagrant... Mais ca me met mal a l’aise cette separation entre « les vrais problemes de la vie » et les questions fondamentales qui n’interessent pas grand monde....

    • The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

      The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.

      https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502


  • Offensive contre les géants de l’édition scientifique en Europe Marco Fortier - 13 Septembre 2018 - Le Devoir
    https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/536595/offensive-europeenne-contre-les-geants-de-l-edition-scientifique

    Les conseils de recherche de onze pays européens, dont la France et le Royaume-Uni, prennent les grands moyens pour endiguer la soif de profits des géants de l’édition scientifique, qui siphonnent les budgets des bibliothèques universitaires.

    Ces onze États viennent de dévoiler un plan qui obligera d’ici deux ans leurs chercheurs subventionnés à publier le fruit de leurs travaux sur des plateformes en libre accès. Le but : mettre fin à la domination commerciale des cinq plus grands éditeurs scientifiques, qui font des profits considérables en publiant des articles fournis par les universitaires.

    « Il ne faut pas enfermer la science derrière des murs payants », indique le manifeste du nom de « Plan S » dévoilé la semaine dernière par Science Europe, un regroupement d’organisations européennes vouées à la promotion et au financement de la recherche.

    « Aucune raison ne justifie un modèle d’affaires établi sur des abonnements à des publications scientifiques. À l’ère numérique, le libre accès augmente la portée et la visibilité de la recherche universitaire », précise le document signé par Marc Schiltz, président de Science Europe.


    Outre Paris et Londres, cette offensive est appuyée par les organismes subventionnaires des pays suivants : Suède, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Autriche, Irlande, Luxembourg, Italie, Pologne et Slovénie. Ces États, comme bien d’autres (dont le Québec et le Canada), en ont assez des coûts astronomiques des abonnements aux publications scientifiques comme Nature ou Science.

    Comme Le Devoir l’a rapporté au cours de l’été, les frais d’abonnement aux magazines scientifiques accaparent désormais 73 % des budgets d’acquisition des bibliothèques universitaires. Les cinq grands éditeurs publient à eux seuls plus de la moitié des articles savants dans le monde. Les abonnements à ces magazines coûtent tellement cher que certaines bibliothèques n’ont plus les moyens d’acheter des livres.

    L’offensive des pays européens contre ces tarifs jugés déraisonnables risque de faire mal aux géants de l’édition — notamment les groupes Elsevier, #Springer #Nature, #John_Wiley_Sons, #Taylor_Francis et #SAGE_Publications — qui dominent le marché mondial.

    « Ce ne sera pas la mort demain de ces grands ensembles-là, mais cette campagne s’ajoute aux désabonnements [aux périodiques scientifiques] de beaucoup d’universités en réaction à la hausse des coûts d’abonnement », dit Vincent Larivière, professeur à l’École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information de l’Université de Montréal (UdeM). Il dirige la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur les transformations de la communication savante.

    Crise mondiale
    Les grandes revues comme Nature sont attrayantes pour les chercheurs. Ces magazines sont prestigieux. Ils sont lus, donc beaucoup cités. Et pour réussir en tant que professeur — être embauché, obtenir une promotion —, il faut être cité par ses pairs. C’est pour ça que les magazines scientifiques peuvent se permettre de facturer une fortune en abonnements aux bibliothèques universitaires.

    Les éditeurs scientifiques obtiennent pourtant leurs articles tout à fait gratuitement : les chercheurs ne sont pas payés par les magazines pour publier leurs travaux. Ça fait partie de leur tâche de professeur. Et les articles sont révisés bénévolement par des pairs. Plus troublant encore, un nombre croissant de revues scientifiques imposent des frais de 3000 $ ou 5000 $, par exemple, aux professeurs qui veulent que leurs articles soient en libre accès.

    Ce modèle d’affaires des revues savantes soulève un tollé partout dans le monde, rappelle Vincent Larivière. Le biologiste Randy Schekman, de l’Université de Californie, a même appelé au boycottage des magazines ayant publié ses travaux qui lui ont valu le prix Nobel. Il a fondé en 2012 son propre journal, eLife, qui publie ses articles en libre accès.

    Aux États-Unis, de puissants organismes comme la Fondation Bill Melinda Gates et les Instituts nationaux de santé (National Institutes of Health) exigent aussi que les recherches scientifiques qu’ils financent soient publiées en libre accès.

     #édition_scientifique #open_access #publications_scientifiques #elsevier #publications #sciences #science #recherche #université


  • Elsevier are corrupting open science in Europe | Science | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2018/jun/29/elsevier-are-corrupting-open-science-in-europe?CMP=share_btn_fb

    Now, the European Commission have launched an Open Science Monitor to help provide data on the development of Open Science in Europe. To their credit, the Commission have been relatively transparent about the methods and data sources used for this and who is involved. They are also inviting comments to improve the indicators.
    Advertisement

    However, a cursory glance at the methodological note reveals something rather odd. The subcontractor for the monitor is Elsevier, the publisher and data analytics provider. Within scholarly communications, Elsevier has perhaps the single worst reputation. With profit margins around 37%, larger than Apple and big oil companies, Elsevier dominate the publishing landscape by selling research back to the same institutes that carried out the work.

    It gets worse too. Throughout the methods, you can see that there is an overwhelming bias towards Elsevier products and services, such as Scopus, Mendeley, and Plum Analytics. These services provide metrics for researchers such as citation counts and social media shares, as well as data-sharing and networking platforms. There are now dozens of comments in the note pointing out the clear bias towards Elsevier and the overlooking of alternatives.

    With so many glaring issues, we should ask why the European Commission allowed this. It seems like a profoundly undemocratic practice to have a company with such an anti-open history now with such a powerful position in the future of Open Science in Europe. The risk here is that by using Elsevier services for such a crucial task, it creates a perverse incentive for researchers to use those services, and thus become dependent on them. This very real issue became apparent last week when Mendeley encrypted its databases, making it more difficult for users to access even their own data. Researchers could become trapped in a relationship with Elsevier in which they are the service and content providers, the product and the consumer.

    It is a cruel irony that Elsevier are to be paid to monitor the very system that they have historically fought against. The European Commission should remove Elsevier as sub-contractor and look into better options such as an independent group with no conflicts of interest. It is time to stand up to these ruthless mega-corporations before they corrupt Open Science.

    #Accès_libre #Science_ouverte #Union_Européenne #Magouille

    • Pour les profanes comme moi :

      Within scholarly communications, #Elsevier has perhaps the single worst reputation. With profit margins around 37%, larger than Apple and big oil companies, Elsevier dominate the publishing landscape by selling research back to the same institutes that carried out the work.

      It is a cruel irony that Elsevier are to be paid to monitor the very system that they have historically fought against. The European Commission should remove Elsevier as sub-contractor and look into better options such as an independent group with no conflicts of interest.

      #collusion ? #corruption ?



  • Quand #Elsevier publie un rapport sur le #open_data... tu te dis que quelque chose ne tourne pas rond ou qu’il y a un beau business derrière... mais tu le signales quand même sur seenthis (même si tu ne l’as pas encore lu) :
    OPEN DATA. THE RESEARCHER PERSPECTIVE

    The Open Data report is a result of a year-long, co-conducted study between Elsevier and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), part of Leiden University, the Netherlands. The study is based on a complementary methods approach consisting of a quantitative analysis of bibliometric and publication data, a global survey of 1,200 researchers and three case studies including in-depth interviews with key individuals involved in data collection, analysis and deposition in the fields of soil science, human genetics and digital humanities.


    https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/281920/Open-data-report.pdf
    #science #recherche #université #édition_scientifique #publications #open_access #sondage
    cc @reka @fil


  • Un chiffre d’affaires de 8,3 milliards € pour #RELX (#Elsevier) en 2017
    https://www.actualitte.com/article/monde-edition/un-chiffre-d-affaires-de-8-3-milliards-pour-relx-elsevier-en-2017/87344

    RELX, ex-Elsevier, parmi les plus importants groupes éditoriaux du monde, ne connaît pas la crise : son rapport annuel pour 2017 annonce un chiffre d’affaires de 8,395 milliards €, en hausse de 4 %, et des bénéfices de 2,6 milliards €. Si le géant de l’édition académique et de l’organisation d’événements s’inquiète d’une tendance de la recherche à prôner l’accès ouvert, ses résultats économiques restent stables année après année.

    Frankfurt Book Fair - Elsevier
    Elsevier, désormais connu sous le nom RELX (ActuaLitté, CC BY SA 2.0)

    #édition_scientifique #crapules

    L’édition académique se porte bien, du moins est-ce le cas pour RELX. Le groupe éditorial, spécialisé dans ce domaine, fait état d’un chiffre d’affaires en hausse de 4 % et stable par rapport aux dernières années : en 2015, le groupe que l’on nommait alors Reed Elsevier annonçait déjà des revenus de plus de 8 milliards €. Les bénéfices sont eux aussi au beau fixe, à 2,6 milliards €, en hausse de 6 %.



  • I’m sorry but I’m going to decline. I’ve written lots of short introductions on [this topic], including for another encyclopaedia, and I’d just be repeating myself. I’m unsure of the worth of such reference works anyway, and since I don’t have time to write everything I want to write, I’m unwilling to spend time on something I don’t. It might be different if this was either fairly paid, or would be available open access, rather than at high cost. I’m a little reluctant to recommend other people given the low pay for intellectual work, from a commercial publisher, but you might try one of the other authors of books on [this topic].

    #Respect.

    On turning down poorly-paid, limited value, academic work

    I’ve just turned down another invitation to write an encyclopaedia entry. I agonised about it, and ended up posting about it on my personal Facebook page. The issue was in part the payment – £40 for 2000-2500 words. I’d be less insulted if they wanted it for free. I’d need to write at 400-500 words an hour, with no editing, for this to be minimum wage. (Yes, I’m on a very good salary, but I could only do this outside of regular hours.) It’s a commercial publisher, and the resource would be expensive subscription-only. The other issue was the topic – important to me, but something on which I feel I have done all the introductory work I can already. And also, the point of these things is presumably to have a range of views on the topic. There were a lot of useful replies from friends which helped me to think this through, discussing the insulting and inadequate pay, and whether there was something worthwhile intellectually in writing it. Here’s an edited version of my reply:

    This was not open access, but would be an extremely expensive subscription based source. The publisher must calculate that likely sales will cover the costs, and turn a profit, but that’s not to say it has a genuine intellectual or pedagogic purpose.

    So, here are my criteria

    is it academically interesting or otherwise worthwhile?
    i.e it forces you to think about something new
    or it gives you a chance to say something new or different on a familiar topic
    or to write a popular or introductory summary on something you’ve only ever written about before for a different audience
    is it going to be widely available at reasonable cost or open access?
    is it really well paid, such that you could use the money for something useful (i.e. to pay for an archive visit, that really expensive/rare book you want, etc.)?

    https://progressivegeographies.com/2017/12/19/on-turning-down-poorly-paid-limited-value-academic-work
    #résistance #publications #édition_scientifique #université #celles_et_ceux_qui_disent_non #ça_suffit #travail #exploitation #open_access

    v. aussi, du même auteur :
    https://progressivegeographies.com/2013/06/05/on-refusing-unpaid-work
    https://progressivegeographies.com/2012/06/15/work-for-hire

    • 5 strategies for saying “no” more often

      “I should say no more often”, I often say to myself, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. For me the hardest part is not actually declining the request, but deciding whether to do it. There are just so many interesting opportunities and I would love it if I could accept all of them!

      As a result, often other projects (cough writing cough) tend to suffer. Then I start feeling anxious and guilty about all the things that I need to do, and it’s a vicious circle from there. Since the demands on my time are increasing, I have been (proactively) thinking how to approach this. This post covers a few strategies I have found helpful so far.

      http://www.veronikach.com/habits-productivity/5-strategies-for-saying-no-more-often

    • « Je ne publierai plus jamais dans une revue scientifique »

      #Olivier_Ertzscheid, enseignant-chercheur et blogueur renommé, explique pourquoi le système des revues scientifiques – depuis l’évaluation par les pairs jusqu’aux abonnements exorbitants – va à l’encontre du travail scientifique et de sa diffusion au plus grand nombre.

      https://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-sciences/20160519.RUE2928/je-ne-publierai-plus-jamais-dans-une-revue-scientifique.html

    • Dans le monde de la recherche scientifique, publier ses travaux est un passage obligé. Cela permet aux chercheuses et chercheurs de faire connaître leur travail mais aussi d’être identifié par leurs pairs et pourquoi pas d’obtenir un poste, à condition d’être publié dans les bonnes revues. Sauf que cette mécanique de publication - qui permettait à la base de faire circuler le savoir - est devenue une vraie chasse gardée économique : celle des éditeurs scientifiques. Quelques grands noms comme le neerlandais #Elsevier ou le groupe #Springer/#Nature se partagent un marché juteux et privatisent au passage des travaux scientifiques la plupart du temps financés par des fonds publics.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnxqoP-c0ZE

    • Bonjour @david2, je ne suis pas complètement d’accord avec vous. Bien sûr, « tout travail mérite salaire », mais heureusement les personnes et les sociétés travaillent aussi parfois pour « rien » (ou pour autre chose que pour un salaire —> « don » et « contre-don »). Là, le problème est à mon avis tout autre, c’est quand on est obligés (par l’institution qui nous embauche, pour pouvoir exister dans le monde académique, etc.) à travailler pour rien POUR DES ENTREPRISES COMMERCIALES qui, en plus, sont très très lucratives.
      C’est là le problème. Je fais ici sur seenthis tous les jours presque une revue de presse... gratuitement, et bien heureuse de le faire. Je travaille un peu dans l’ombre pour visionscarto et pour le journal La Cité. Gratuitement. Et je suis ravie de le faire. On fait tous et toutes heureusement des gestes gratuits. C’est pas cela le problème.
      Mais pour sûr je ne ferai plus des review d’articles scientifiques gratuitement pour des revues appartenant à ces fameux groupes (Elsevier, Springer etc.). Fini. Ou alors je prétends être rémunérée pour cela (et non pas en bons cadeaux de livres de leur catalogue). Je continuerai par contre à le faire pour des revues open source. J’estime que cela fait partie de mon métier d’enseignante chercheuse.


  • German researchers resign from Elsevier journals in push for nationwide #open_access

    Five leading German scientists have resigned from their editorial positions at journals published by Elsevier, the latest step in a battle over open-access and subscription policies between the Dutch publishing giant and a consortium of German libraries, universities, and research institutes.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/german-researchers-resign-elsevier-journals-push-nationwide-open-access

    #Elsevier #résistance #édition_scientifique #université #science #publications_scientifiques #Allemagne


  •  » Le marché extraordinairement lucratif de la publication scientifique est-il mauvais pour la science ? Par Stephen Buranyi
    http://www.les-crises.fr/le-marche-extraordinairement-lucratif-de-la-publication-scientifique-est-

    Même les scientifiques qui luttent pour une réforme n’ont souvent pas conscience des origines du système : comment, durant les années prospères après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, des entrepreneurs construisirent leurs fortunes en soustrayant l’édition des mains des scientifiques, développant ainsi l’industrie à une échelle inimaginable auparavant. Et nul n’a été plus créatif et ingénieux que Robert Maxwell qui a fait des revues scientifiques une spectaculaire machine à faire de l’argent permettant ainsi son ascension dans la société britannique. Maxwell deviendra un membre du Parlement, un baron de la presse défiant Rupert Murdoch, et une des figures les plus célèbres de la société britannique. Mais sa véritable importance était bien plus grande que ce que la majorité d’entre nous ne réalise. Aussi improbable que cela puisse paraître, peu de personnes durant le siècle dernier ont contribué davantage à la façon dont la science est traitée aujourd’hui que Maxwell.

    #xyzaeiou #publication_scientifique



  • Major German Universities Cancel Elsevier Contracts

    These institutions join around 60 others that hope to put increasing pressure on the publishing giant in ongoing negotiations for a new nationwide licensing agreement.


    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49906/title/Major-German-Universities-Cancel-Elsevier-Contracts
    #résistance #Elsevier #université #Allemagne #éditions_scientifiques #publications_scientifiques

    • The Internet Made Information Free: Now It Has Come For Academic Research

      A new study out earlier this month suggests that the world’s largest “pirate” archive of academic literature, #Sci-Hub, may hold as much as 68.9% of the 81.6 million scholarly publications captured in Crossref’s DOI database. Put another way, more than two-thirds of the world’s major contemporary research output is now available completely for free, despite a vast fraction of it being ordinarily paywalled away from public (and even scholarly) access. What does this latest glimpse into the world of copyright tell us about the future of academic publishing and open access?

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/07/31/the-internet-made-information-free-now-it-has-come-for-academic-research/#6a103d774640

    • Information concernant les accès aux revues scientifiques de l’éditeur Springer

      Mesdames, Messieurs, chers collègues,

      Nous souhaitons vous informer que l’#Université_Grenoble_Alpes et #Grenoble_INP ne seront plus abonnés aux revues électroniques de l’éditeur Springer en 2018.

      Après plus d’un an d’une très difficile négociation, menée dans le cadre du consortium #Couperin qui regroupe plus de 250 établissements d’enseignement supérieur, de recherche et de santé, la discussion a abouti à une impasse : alors que le consortium a réclamé une baisse significative des tarifs, l’éditeur a persisté à exiger une hausse, certes modérée (pas plus d’1% par an), mais qui ne prend pas en compte la situation financière des établissements français, le coût abusif et en constante augmentation des abonnements scientifiques, la baisse des consultations et la part croissante de l’open access dans ses publications. Démontrant une conception purement quantitative de ses produits, sans en apporter une évaluation qualitative sérieuse, l’éditeur a négligé la part que représentent les publications en accès libre (désormais près du dixième des articles publiés), dont la mise en ligne est déjà financée par les APC (Article processing charges, frais de publication des articles, réglés généralement par les laboratoires). Dans ce cas de figure, les chercheurs grenoblois paient, chez Springer, deux fois l’accès à ces publications : par l’abonnement institutionnel et par le paiement des APC.

      En accord avec la négociation menée par Couperin, les présidences de l’Université Grenoble Alpes et de Grenoble INP refusent les conditions tarifaires proposées par Springer. Cette position est à replacer dans la perspective des augmentations inacceptables des années précédentes qui nous ont mis dans une situation économique intenable sur le long terme.

      Le CNRS et l’INSERM, qui sont sur la même position que les universités, verront également leurs accès coupés.

      Faute d’accord, Springer a indiqué qu’il couperait l’accès à ces contenus, pour la France et nos établissements grenoblois, à compter du 1er avril 2018.

      Cette interruption des accès peut cependant être nuancée. D’une part les archives de ces revues jusqu’au 31 décembre 2017 resteront accessibles via la plateforme Istex. Les liens pour y accéder depuis la bibliothèque numérique seront mis à jour prochainement. D’autre part, les publications postérieures au 1er janvier 2018 peuvent être obtenues par l’intermédiaire du service de prêt entre bibliothèques ( https://bibliotheques.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/services/faire-venir-un-document-peb-) aux conditions habituelles.

      Vous trouverez en pièce jointe la liste des revues concernées par cette coupure des accès.

      Le service des collections numériques du SID (bu-docelec@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr ) reste à votre disposition pour répondre à toutes vos questions.

      Pour la suite, la négociation continuera avec Springer. La position de grande fermeté adoptée par les établissements d’enseignement supérieur et les organismes de recherche facilitera la position de nos négociateurs au plan national.

      Très cordialement,

      Patrick Lévy, Président de l’Université Grenoble Alpes
      Pierre Benech, Administrateur général de Grenoble INP

      #Grenoble


  • Is the staggeringly profitable #business of scientific publishing bad for #science? | Science | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

    The core of Elsevier’s operation is in scientific journals, the weekly or monthly publications in which scientists share their results. Despite the narrow audience, scientific publishing is a remarkably big business. With total global revenues of more than £19bn, it weighs in somewhere between the recording and the film industries in size, but it is far more profitable. In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.

    [...]

    It is difficult to overstate how much power a journal editor now had to shape a scientist’s career and the direction of science itself. “Young people tell me all the time, ‘If I don’t publish in CNS [a common acronym for Cell/Nature/Science, the most prestigious journals in biology], I won’t get a job,” says Schekman. He compared the pursuit of high-impact #publications to an incentive system as rotten as banking bonuses. “They have a very big #influence on where science goes,” he said.

    And so science became a strange co-production between scientists and journal editors, with the former increasingly pursuing discoveries that would impress the latter. These days, given a choice of projects, a scientist will almost always reject both the prosaic work of confirming or disproving past studies, and the decades-long pursuit of a risky “moonshot”, in favour of a middle ground: a topic that is popular with editors and likely to yield regular publications. “Academics are incentivised to produce research that caters to these demands,” said the biologist and Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner in a 2014 interview, calling the system “corrupt.”

    • #Robert_Maxwell #Reed-Elsevier #Elsevier #multinationales #business #Pergamon

      With total global revenues of more than £19bn, it weighs in somewhere between the recording and the film industries in size, but it is far more profitable. In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.

      #profit

      In order to make money, a traditional publisher – say, a magazine – first has to cover a multitude of costs: it pays writers for the articles; it employs editors to commission, shape and check the articles; and it pays to distribute the finished product to subscribers and retailers. All of this is expensive, and successful magazines typically make profits of around 12-15%.

      The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.

      A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.

      Many scientists also believe that the publishing industry exerts too much influence over what scientists choose to study, which is ultimately bad for science itself. Journals prize new and spectacular results – after all, they are in the business of selling subscriptions – and scientists, knowing exactly what kind of work gets published, align their submissions accordingly. This produces a steady stream of papers, the importance of which is immediately apparent. But it also means that scientists do not have an accurate map of their field of inquiry. Researchers may end up inadvertently exploring dead ends that their fellow scientists have already run up against, solely because the information about previous failures has never been given space in the pages of the relevant scientific publications

      It is hard to believe that what is essentially a for-profit oligopoly functioning within an otherwise heavily regulated, government-funded enterprise can avoid extinction in the long run. But publishing has been deeply enmeshed in the science profession for decades. Today, every scientist knows that their career depends on being published, and professional success is especially determined by getting work into the most prestigious journals. The long, slow, nearly directionless work pursued by some of the most influential scientists of the 20th century is no longer a viable career option. Under today’s system, the father of genetic sequencing, Fred Sanger, who published very little in the two decades between his 1958 and 1980 Nobel prizes, may well have found himself out of a job.

      Improbable as it might sound, few people in the last century have done more to shape the way science is conducted today than Maxwell.

      Scientific articles are about unique discoveries: one article cannot substitute for another. If a serious new journal appeared, scientists would simply request that their university library subscribe to that one as well. If Maxwell was creating three times as many journals as his competition, he would make three times more money.

      “At the start of my career, nobody took much notice of where you published, and then everything changed in 1974 with Cell,” Randy Schekman, the Berkeley molecular biologist and Nobel prize winner, told me. #Cell (now owned by Elsevier) was a journal started by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to showcase the newly ascendant field of molecular biology. It was edited by a young biologist named #Ben_Lewin, who approached his work with an intense, almost literary bent. Lewin prized long, rigorous papers that answered big questions – often representing years of research that would have yielded multiple papers in other venues – and, breaking with the idea that journals were passive instruments to communicate science, he rejected far more papers than he published.

      Suddenly, where you published became immensely important. Other editors took a similarly activist approach in the hopes of replicating Cell’s success. Publishers also adopted a metric called “#impact_factor,” invented in the 1960s by #Eugene_Garfield, a librarian and linguist, as a rough calculation of how often papers in a given journal are cited in other papers. For publishers, it became a way to rank and advertise the scientific reach of their products. The new-look journals, with their emphasis on big results, shot to the top of these new rankings, and scientists who published in “high-impact” journals were rewarded with jobs and funding. Almost overnight, a new currency of prestige had been created in the scientific world. (Garfield later referred to his creation as “like nuclear energy … a mixed blessing”.)

      And so science became a strange co-production between scientists and journal editors, with the former increasingly pursuing discoveries that would impress the latter. These days, given a choice of projects, a scientist will almost always reject both the prosaic work of confirming or disproving past studies, and the decades-long pursuit of a risky “moonshot”, in favour of a middle ground: a topic that is popular with editors and likely to yield regular publications. “Academics are incentivised to produce research that caters to these demands,” said the biologist and Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner in a 2014 interview, calling the system “corrupt.”

      As Maxwell had predicted, competition didn’t drive down prices. Between 1975 and 1985, the average price of a journal doubled. The New York Times reported that in 1984 it cost $2,500 to subscribe to the journal Brain Research; in 1988, it cost more than $5,000. That same year, Harvard Library overran its research journal budget by half a million dollars.

      Scientists occasionally questioned the fairness of this hugely profitable business to which they supplied their work for free, but it was university librarians who first realised the trap in the market Maxwell had created. The librarians used university funds to buy journals on behalf of scientists. Maxwell was well aware of this. “Scientists are not as price-conscious as other professionals, mainly because they are not spending their own money,” he told his publication Global Business in a 1988 interview. And since there was no way to swap one journal for another, cheaper one, the result was, Maxwell continued, “a perpetual financing machine”. Librarians were locked into a series of thousands of tiny monopolies. There were now more than a million scientific articles being published a year, and they had to buy all of them at whatever price the publishers wanted.

      With the purchase of Pergamon’s 400-strong catalogue, Elsevier now controlled more than 1,000 scientific journals, making it by far the largest scientific publisher in the world.

      At the time of the merger, Charkin, the former Macmillan CEO, recalls advising Pierre Vinken, the CEO of Elsevier, that Pergamon was a mature business, and that Elsevier had overpaid for it. But Vinken had no doubts, Charkin recalled: “He said, ‘You have no idea how profitable these journals are once you stop doing anything. When you’re building a journal, you spend time getting good editorial boards, you treat them well, you give them dinners. Then you market the thing and your salespeople go out there to sell subscriptions, which is slow and tough, and you try to make the journal as good as possible. That’s what happened at Pergamon. And then we buy it and we stop doing all that stuff and then the cash just pours out and you wouldn’t believe how wonderful it is.’ He was right and I was wrong.”

      By 1994, three years after acquiring Pergamon, Elsevier had raised its prices by 50%. Universities complained that their budgets were stretched to breaking point – the US-based Publishers Weekly reported librarians referring to a “doomsday machine” in their industry – and, for the first time, they began cancelling subscriptions to less popular journals.

      In 1998, Elsevier rolled out its plan for the internet age, which would come to be called “The Big Deal”. It offered electronic access to bundles of hundreds of journals at a time: a university would pay a set fee each year – according to a report based on freedom of information requests, Cornell University’s 2009 tab was just short of $2m – and any student or professor could download any journal they wanted through Elsevier’s website. Universities signed up en masse.

      Those predicting Elsevier’s downfall had assumed scientists experimenting with sharing their work for free online could slowly outcompete Elsevier’s titles by replacing them one at a time. In response, Elsevier created a switch that fused Maxwell’s thousands of tiny monopolies into one so large that, like a basic resource – say water, or power – it was impossible for universities to do without. Pay, and the scientific lights stayed on, but refuse, and up to a quarter of the scientific literature would go dark at any one institution. It concentrated immense power in the hands of the largest publishers, and Elsevier’s profits began another steep rise that would lead them into the billions by the 2010s. In 2015, a Financial Times article anointed Elsevier “the business the internet could not kill”.

      Publishers are now wound so tightly around the various organs of the scientific body that no single effort has been able to dislodge them. In a 2015 report, an information scientist from the University of Montreal, Vincent Larivière, showed that Elsevier owned 24% of the scientific journal market, while Maxwell’s old partners Springer, and his crosstown rivals Wiley-Blackwell, controlled about another 12% each. These three companies accounted for half the market. (An Elsevier representative familiar with the report told me that by their own estimate they publish only 16% of the scientific literature.)

      Elsevier says its primary goal is to facilitate the work of scientists and other researchers. An Elsevier rep noted that the company received 1.5m article submissions last year, and published 420,000; 14 million scientists entrust Elsevier to publish their results, and 800,000 scientists donate their time to help them with editing and peer-review.

      In a sense, it is not any one publisher’s fault that the scientific world seems to bend to the industry’s gravitational pull. When governments including those of China and Mexico offer financial bonuses for publishing in high-impact journals, they are not responding to a demand by any specific publisher, but following the rewards of an enormously complex system that has to accommodate the utopian ideals of science with the commercial goals of the publishers that dominate it. (“We scientists have not given a lot of thought to the water we’re swimming in,” Neal Young told me.)

      Since the early 2000s, scientists have championed an alternative to subscription publishing called “open access”. This solves the difficulty of balancing scientific and commercial imperatives by simply removing the commercial element. In practice, this usually takes the form of online journals, to which scientists pay an upfront free to cover editing costs, which then ensure the work is available free to access for anyone in perpetuity. But despite the backing of some of the biggest funding agencies in the world, including the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, only about a quarter of scientific papers are made freely available at the time of their publication.

      The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.

      Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.

      Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now.

      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
      #Butterworths #Springer #Paul_Rosbaud #histoire #Genève #Pergamon #Oxford_United #Derby_County_FC #monopole #open_access #Sci-Hub #Alexandra_Elbakyan

    • Publish and be praised (article de 2003)

      It should be a public scandal that the results of publicly-funded scientific research are not available to members of the public who are interested in, or could benefit from, such access. Furthermore, many commercial publishers have exploited the effective monopoly they are given on the distribution rights to individual works and charge absurdly high rates for some of their titles, forcing libraries with limited budgets to cancel journal subscriptions and deny their researchers access to potentially critical information. The system is obsolete and broken and needs to change.

      https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/09/research.highereducation


  • Global publishing giant wins $15 million damages against researcher for sharing publicly-funded knowledge | Privacy Online News
    https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/06/global-publishing-giant-wins-15-million-damages-researcher-sh

    The court awarded $15 million damages to the scientific publisher on the basis of 100 articles published by #Elsevier that had been made available without permission on Sci-Hub and a similar site called LibGen. At the time of writing, Sci-Hub claims to hold 62 million scientific research papers – probably a majority of all those ever published – most of which are unauthorized copies. According to a report in the scientific journal Science last year, it is Elsevier which is most affected by #Sci-Hub’s activities:

    #libgen


  • Alexandra Elbakyan – Science Should be Open to all Not Behind Paywalls | | LEAF
    http://www.leafscience.org/alexandra-elbakyan

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz1Uj20tZvs

    We spoke to Alexandra about the history of Sci-Hub and her vision of why science should be freely available to all in this exclusive interview and we hope you enjoy it as much as we enjoyed spending time with Alexandra and learning about her work.  The original interview is also available here for those who prefer Russian language.

    #sci-hub #recherche #elsevier


  • L’Open access est-il négociable ? Leçons du contrat #Elsevier / Pays-Bas – L’Alambic numérique
    https://alambic.hypotheses.org/6013

    Avec tout le respect dû au courage des négociateurs, je me range dans le camp des sceptiques, on l’aura compris. Cette négociation illustre, je crois, ce que l’on peut obtenir de mieux des éditeurs : une transition vers le libre accès à inflation constante… En termes marchands : « mieux, mais pour plus cher. » Est-ce cela que nous voulons : le libre accès à tout prix ? Alors que nous sommes étranglés par nos dépenses actuelles auprès des éditeurs ? Ce que plaide le livre blanc de la bibliothèque Max Planck2 , c’est la négociation avec les éditeurs pour une transition rapide vers l’OA, avec l’idée de faire diminuer la dépense. L’exemple néerlandais montre que l’on peut remplir la première condition (une transition rapide vers l’OA), et ce, au prix d’une négociation très dure. Mais quelle négociation pourrait déboucher sur une diminution de la dépense, quand elle se fait avec des éditeurs en situation de monopole ? Quel moyen de pression avons-nous pour obtenir cela ? Et si la transition se fait à dépense constante, sur quel miracle peut-on compter pour la faire diminuer ensuite ? De ce point de vue, l’expérience néerlandaise sonne comme un démenti empirique des propositions du Max Planck : nous sommes dans la nasse.

    #open_access
    #xyzaeiou


  • Comment Internet permet de réaliser la bibliothèque universelle, par Robert Darnton
    https://www.actualitte.com/article/monde-edition/comment-internet-permet-de-realiser-la-bibliotheque-universelle-par-robert-darnton/82770
    /images/facebook/34670835376-2c8bd58772-b-591d745e8fb83.jpg

    L’accès aux connaissances en recul

    Cet idéal d’accès à la culture par les bibliothèques, qui dérive de Condorcet et Thomas Jefferson — pour lesquels les Républiques de France et d’Amérique dépendent de la République des Lettres — est aujourd’hui menacé, explique Robert Darnton.

    « L’accès aux connaissances se ferme de plus en plus souvent. Savez-vous le prix moyen d’un abonnement à un journal scientifique de chimie  ? 4044 $ aujourd’hui, par an, contre 30 $ annuels en 1970. Cette hausse est quatre fois plus importante que l’inflation », précise l’historien, qui accuse les groupes éditoriaux Reed #Elsevier (RELX), #Wiley et #Springer de réaliser « des bénéfices énormes » sur les restrictions d’accès au savoir.

    « Ces maisons sont des sociétés par actions, qui fonctionnent dans une logique de rentabilité, tandis que les bibliothèques de recherche, qui donnent accès à ces revues scientifiques, voient leurs budgets réduits. » Cette situation voit un affrontement féroce entre les partisans du bien public, qui expliquent que l’impôt finançant la recherche publique justifie l’accès libre aux résultats de celle-ci, et les lobbys de l’édition, qui luttent contre l’entrée dans la législation du « Fair Access to Science and Technology Act » , aux États-Unis, qui garantirait l’accès gratuit aux articles scientifiques financés par l’argent public, 6 mois après leur publication.

    #publications
    #xyzaeiou


  • Un chiffre d’affaires de plus de 8 milliards € pour RELX (Reed #Elsevier) en 2015
    https://www.actualitte.com/article/monde-edition/un-chiffre-d-affaires-de-plus-de-8-milliards-pour-relx-reed-elsevier-en-2015/63724

    Si vous avez quelques petites économies, achetez du Elsevier, ça vous rapportera gros !

    « Nous avons réalisé une bonne croissance des revenus en 2015 [sic] , et nous avons su générer une croissance du chiffre d’affaires avant croissance des bénéfices grâce à une innovation continue dans notre fonctionnement. Notre profil financier et notre trésorerie restent forts » s’est félicité Erik Nils Engstrom, directeur exécutif de RELX. Les principaux développements se trouveront du côté des « analyses sophistiquées d’informations », un secteur que RELX a déjà développé en 2015 et qui explique le succès de cette année.

    Le chiffre d’affaires du groupe, qui touche notamment à l’édition scientifique et à l’organisation d’événements (notamment Livre Paris ou la Comic Con en France), connaît une hausse depuis plusieurs années. Pour 2014, déjà, le CA était en augmentation de 1 % par rapport à l’année précédente, avec 7,2 milliards €.

    Les bénéfices de l’année 2015 sont estimés à 2,514 milliards € , soit 5 % d’augmentation par rapport à l’année précédente. Tous les secteurs sur lesquels RELX est présent sont en croissance, annonce le groupe : l’édition au format numérique est particulièrement plébiscitée, et compense sans problème la baisse des revenus des publications papier.

    RELX annonce par ailleurs un rachat d’actions à hauteur de 500 millions £ pour l’année 2015, une opération qui sera élevée jusqu’à 700 millions £ en 2016.

    RELX fait face à un mouvement de résistance qui engage nombre de chercheurs à travers le monde, et particulièrement aux Pays-Bas, où l’on dénonce des tarifs trop élevés et un engagement moindre dans le mouvement de l’open access, qui faciliterait la diffusion des études et autres articles scientifiques.

    #xyzaeiou #communication_scientifique



    • Abstract

      Despite the growth of Open Access, illegally circumventing paywalls to access scholarly publications is becoming a more mainstream phenomenon. The web service Sci-Hub is amongst the biggest facilitators of this, offering free access to around 62 million publications. So far it is not well studied how and why its users are accessing publications through Sci-Hub. By utilizing the recently released corpus of Sci-Hub and comparing it to the data of ~28 million downloads done through the service, this study tries to address some of these questions. The comparative analysis shows that both the usage and complete corpus is largely made up of recently published articles, with users disproportionately favoring newer articles and 35% of downloaded articles being published after 2013. These results hint that embargo periods before publications become Open Access are frequently circumnavigated using Guerilla Open Access approaches like Sci-Hub. On a journal level, the downloads show a bias towards some scholarly disciplines, especially Chemistry, suggesting increased barriers to access for these. Comparing the use and corpus on a publisher level, it becomes clear that only 11% of publishers are highly requested in comparison to the baseline frequency, while 45% of all publishers are significantly less accessed than expected. Despite this, the oligopoly of publishers is even more remarkable on the level of content consumption, with 80% of all downloads being published through only 9 publishers. All of this suggests that Sci-Hub is used by different populations and for a number of different reasons and that there is still a lack of access to the published scientific record. A further analysis of these openly available data resources will undoubtedly be valuable for the investigation of academic publishing.

      #scihub #xyzaeiou


  • Les coûts cachés du #libre_accès

    Chaque année, les universités suisses dépensent des millions de francs pour leurs abonnements à des revues scientifiques. L’alternative du libre accès y remédie, mais partiellement.

    En cause notamment : la facture salée pour les universités et hautes écoles, qui se montait à 70 millions de francs pour la seule année 2015 selon une récente étude.

    A Genève en 2015, l’université a ainsi payé plus de 1,3 million de francs à Elsevier, plus de 500 000 à Wiley et près de 300 000 à Springer. Dans la plupart des bibliothèques universitaires du pays, les chiffres sont du même acabit, voire bien plus élevés pour les plus grandes institutions comme l’université de Zurich – qui a payé près de 3,5 millions pour ces trois éditeurs en 2015 uniquement pour sa bibliothèque principale.

    http://www.lecourrier.ch/146655/les_couts_caches_du_libre_acces
    #édition_scientifique #business #université #recherche #science #publications_scientifiques #Springer #Elsevier #Wiley

    • C’est quand même formidable de tordre les mots à ce point ! Le « libre accès » est tout sauf libre…

      > Le libre accès (« open access », OA) consiste à diffuser en ligne les versions numériques des articles scientifiques et des résultats de la recherche. Deux voies s’offrent aux universitaires, avec des variantes possibles pour chacune.

      > La « green road » signifie que l’article a été publié par un éditeur traditionnel, puis mis en ligne, parfois en respectant un certain délai qui permet d’écouler les versions imprimées.

      > La « gold road », modèle où les articles scientifiques, une fois publiés par les revues, sont immédiatement et gratuitement accessibles au public.

      > Les frais de publication ou « article processing charges » (APC) comprennent notamment les frais d’édition des articles (mise en page, ajout d’image et de graphiques, etc.). CO

      #vocabulaire #copyright_madness #recherche #Elsevier #édition


  • #Elsevier and the 25.2 Billion Dollar A Year Academic Publishing #Business

    Twenty years ago (December 18, 1995), Forbes predicted academic publisher Elsevier’s relevancy and life in the digital age to be short lived. In an article entitled “The internet’s first victim,” journalist John Hayes highlights the technological imperative coming toward the academic publisher’s profit margin with the growing internet culture and said, “Cost-cutting librarians and computer-literate professors are bypassing academic journals — bad news for Elsevier.” After publication of the article, investors seemed to heed Hayes’s rationale for Elsevier’s impeding demise. Elsevier stock fell 7% in two days to $26 a share.
    As the smoke settles twenty years later, one of the clear winners on this longitudinal timeline of innovation is the very firm that investors, journalists, and forecasters wrote off early as a casualty to digital evolution: Elsevier. Perhaps to the chagrin of many academics, the publisher has actually not been bruised nor battered. In fact, the publisher’s health is stronger than ever. As of 2015, the academic publishing market that Elsevier leads has an annual revenue of $25.2 billion. According to its 2013 financials Elsevier had a higher percentage of profit than Apple, Inc.


    https://medium.com/@jasonschmitt/can-t-disrupt-this-elsevier-and-the-25-2-billion-dollar-a-year-academic-publ
    #édition_scientifique #escroquerie #publications_scientifiques #science #recherche